Northern Ireland: Buses

Lord Laird: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What steps they are taking to encourage the development of bus corridors and lanes throughout Northern Ireland.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: The chief executive of Roads Service has written to the noble Lord. A copy of the letter has been placed in the Library.

Northern Ireland: Planning Appeals and Approvals

Lord Laird: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	In what percentage of Planning Approval Commission cases in Northern Ireland since 1990 has the Department of the Environment Planning Service been represented by a lawyer.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: The information to answer this question is not held centrally and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

PEACE II Funding

Lord Laird: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Which organisations have received funding under PEACE II; where they are located; how much they obtained; and for what purpose.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: The information requested by the noble Lord has been placed in the Library of the House.

SCOPE Programme

The Earl of Northesk: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What safeguards will be built in to the proposed SCOPE programme, run by the Cabinet Office Intelligence and Security Secretariat, to guarantee compliance with the Data Protection Act 1998 and the Human Rights Act 1998, with particular reference to reported proposals for cross-departmental data-sharing and matching.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: The Government are fully aware of the need to comply with all relevant legislation in this area and this has been reflected in the requirements documentation for the SCOPE Programme. Work is continuing on its development and implementation.

Northern Ireland Act 2000: Section 5

Lord Laird: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will place in the Library of the House the draft international agreement referred to in Section 5 of the Northern Ireland Act 2000; who the states parties to the agreement were; whether it was signed and entered into force, and, if not, why not; when Parliament was told about the fate of this agreement; and whether this agreement was ever reconsidered in subsequent suspensions under the Northern Ireland Act 2000.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: Section 5 of the Northern Ireland Act 2000 does not refer to a draft international agreement. No arrangements, as referred to in that section, have been agreed between the British and Irish Governments.

Gocean Lodge Development Scheme

Lord Kilclooney: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	When the planning application for "the Gocean" development at Killyleagh was lodged; what progress has been made with regard to this application; and when a decision will be made.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: The planning application in respect of the Gocean Lodge Development Scheme was received on 24 November 2000. The consideration of the application is drawing to a conclusion, and it is expected that the Department of the Environment's Planning Service will be in a position to consult Down District Council with its preliminary opinion on the outcome of the planning application at its meeting in July.

The Lord Chancellor

Viscount Goschen: asked the Leader of the House:
	When he first became aware of the proposals to abolish the office of Lord Chancellor.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: Information relating to internal discussions and advice within government is not disclosed under Exemption 2 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

Right-to-Buy Scheme

Baroness Turner of Camden: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will publish, for every housing authority in England and Wales, the rankings which underpinned their recent decision to reduce the maximum discount available to tenants under the right-to-buy scheme in 41 areas.

Lord Rooker: On 22 January 2003, the Deputy Prime Minister announced that he intended to reduce the maximum discounts available to tenants under the right-to-buy scheme in 42 areas that were under the greatest housing market pressure, as evidenced by a high incidence of homelessness and high house prices.
	Having considered representations from a number of local authorities and post-transfer housing associations, the Deputy Prime Minister decided to reduce the maximum discounts in 41 areas. This decision was implemented by the Housing (Right to Buy) (Limits on Discounts) (Amendments) Order 2003 (Statutory Instrument 2003 No. 498), which was laid before Parliament on 6 March 2003 and came into effect on 27 March 2003.
	At the request of honourable Members opposite, this order was debated on 12 May 2003 in the other place by the Third Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation (Official Report, Commons Session 2002–03, Monday 12 May 2003, Cols. 003 to 026). During the debate my honourable friend the Member for Harrow East, agreed to publish information on how all housing authority areas ranked in terms of housing pressure.
	This information is set out below. It relates only to England. The order does not affect areas in Wales, which for right-to-buy purposes are subject to different arrangements administered by the National Assembly for Wales.
	The areas are grouped according to the nine English regions—London, South East, East, South West, East Midlands, West Midlands, Yorkshire and the Humber, North East and North West. Each area was ranked on a scale of 1 (high) to 5 (low) according to the levels of homelessness and house prices locally, and these rankings were used to determine the 41 areas under the greatest housing pressure. Subsequently, information relating to earned incomes became available, and the model was rerun to take account of affordability. The effects on individual areas of doing so were marginal. The revised rankings are also set out below.
	My honourable friend the Minister for Housing and Planning (Keith Hill) has today written to Mr Edward Davey MP and to the Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation to convey this information, and to Mr Philip Hammond MP and to Geoffrey Clifton-Brown MP to clarify a separate point made during the debate about the costs of the right-to-buy. Copies of these letters have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. Barrie
	
		Indicators used to determine which Local Authorities were under greatest housing pressure Each LA was originally ranked 1 (high) to 5 (low) according to its levels of homelessness and house prices. -- A revised measure is also shown, which makes allowance for earned incomes. There are very few changes between the two measures.
		
			 Combined Indicators 
			  Homlessness Indicator House Price Indicator Affordability Indicator Original Using Income 
			 London 
			 Barking and Dagenham 2 2 3 — — 
			 Barnet 1 1 1 Greatest pressure Greatest pressure 
			 Bexley 1 2 3 Greatest pressure Greatest pressure 
			 Brent 1 1 1 Greatest pressure Greatest pressure 
			 Bromley 1 1 2 Greatest pressure Greatest pressure 
			 Camden 1 1 1 Greatest pressure Greatest pressure 
			 City of London 3 1 1 Greatest pressure Greatest pressure 
			 Croydon 1 2 2 Greatest pressure Greatest pressure 
			 Ealing 1 1 1 Greatest pressure Greatest pressure 
			 Enfield 1 1 2 Greatest pressure Greatest pressure 
			 Greenwich(1) 3 2 2 — — 
			 Hackney 1 1 1 Greatest pressure Greatest pressure 
			 Hammersmith and Fulham 1 1 1 Greatest pressure Greatest pressure 
			 Haringey 1 1 1 Greatest pressure Greatest pressure 
			 Harrow 1 1 1 Greatest pressure Greatest pressure 
			 Havering 3 2 2 — — 
			 Hillingdon 1 1 2 Greatest pressure Greatest pressure 
			 Hounslow 1 1 1 Greatest pressure Greatest pressure 
			 Islington 1 1 1 Greatest pressure Greatest pressure 
			 Kensington and Chelsea 1 1 1 Greatest pressure Greatest pressure 
			 Kingston upon Thames 1 1 1 Greatest pressure Greatest pressure 
			 Lambeth 1 1 1 Greatest pressure Greatest pressure 
			 Lewisham 1 2 2 Greatest pressure Greatest pressure 
			 Merton 2 1 1 Greatest pressure Greatest pressure 
			 Newham 1 2 2 Greatest pressure Greatest pressure 
			 Redbridge 1 1 2 Greatest pressure Greatest pressure 
			 Richmond upon Thames 1 1 1 Greatest pressure Greatest pressure 
			 Southwark 2 1 1 Greatest pressure Greatest pressure 
			 Sutton 1 1 2 Greatest pressure Greatest pressure 
			 Tower Hamlets 1 1 1 Greatest pressure Greatest pressure 
			 Waltham Forest 1 2 2 Greatest pressure Greatest pressure 
			 Wandsworth 1 1 1 Greatest pressure Greatest pressure 
			 Westminster 1 1 1 Greatest pressure Greatest pressure 
			 South East 
			 Adur 1 2 1 — Greatest pressure 
			 Arun 2 2 2 — — 
			 Ashford 3 2 2 — — 
			 Aylesbury Vale 3 2 2 — — 
			 Basingstoke and Deene 2 2 2 — — 
			 Bracknell Forest 4 1 2 — — 
			 Brighton and Hove 1 2 1 — Greatest pressure 
			 Canterbury 1 2 2 — — 
			 Cherwell 2 2 2 — — 
			 Chichester 3 1 1 — — 
			 Chiltern 1 1 1 Greatest pressure Greatest pressure 
			 Crawley 2 2 2 — — 
			 Dartford 1 2 3 — — 
			 Dover 3 4 4 — — 
			 East Hampshire(2) 1 1 2 Greatest pressure — 
			 Eastbourne 1 3 3 — — 
			 Eastleigh 3 2 1 — — 
			 Elmbridge 2 1 1 — — 
			 Emsom and Ewell 1 1 1 Greatest pressure Greatest pressure 
			 Fareham 2 2 1 — — 
			 Gosport 2 3 3 — — 
			 Gravesham 4 3 3 — — 
			 Guildford 2 1 1 — — 
			 Hart 1 1 1 Greatest pressure Greatest pressure 
			 Hastings 2 4 4 — — 
			 Havant 1 3 3 — — 
			 Horsham 2 1 1 — — 
			 Isle of Wight 1 3 2 — — 
			 Lewes 3 2 2 — — 
			 Maidstone 1 2 2 — — 
			 Mid Sussex 2 1 1 — — 
			 Milton Keynes 1 3 3 — — 
			 Mole Valley 4 1 1 — — 
			 New Forest 1 2 1 — Greatest pressure 
			 Oxford 1 1 1 Greatest pressure Greatest pressure 
			 Portsmouth 4 3 3 — — 
			 Reading 1 1 2 Greatest pressure — 
			 Reigate and Banstead 1 1 1 Greatest pressure Greatest pressure 
			 Rother 2 2 2 — — 
			 Runnymede 3 1 1 — — 
			 Rushmoor 2 2 2 — — 
			 Sevenoaks 2 1 1 — — 
			 Shepway 3 3 3 — — 
			 Slough 1 2 2 — — 
			 South Bucks 3 1 1 — — 
			 South Oxfordshire 2 1 1 — — 
			 Southampton 3 3 3 — — 
			 Spelthorne(3) 1 1 2 Greatest pressure — 
			 Surrey Heath 2 1 1 — — 
			 Swale 3 3 3 — — 
			 Tandridge 2 1 1 — — 
			 Test Valley 2 1 1 — — 
			 Thanet 3 4 3 — — 
			 The Medway Towns 1 3 4 — — 
			 Tonbridge and Malling 1 1 1 Greatest pressure Greatest pressure 
			 Tunbridge Wells 2 2 1 — — 
			 Vale of White Horse 1 1 1 Greatest pressure Greatest pressure 
			 Waverley 2 1 1 — — 
			 Wealden 2 2 2 — — 
			 West Berkshire 1 1 1 Greatest pressure Greatest pressure 
			 West Oxfordshire 3 1 1 — — 
			 Winchester 4 1 1 — — 
			 Windsor and Maidenhead 4 1 1 — — 
			 Woking 2 1 1 — — 
			 Wokingham 2 1 1 — — 
			 Worthing 1 2 3 — — 
			 Wycombe 2 1 2 — — 
			 East of England 
			 Babergh 3 3 3 — — 
			 Basildon 1 3 3 — — 
			 Bedford omitted 3 3 — — 
			 Braintree 3 2 2 — — 
			 Breckland omitted 3 3 — — 
			 Brentwood 4 1 2 — — 
			 Broadland 3 2 2 — — 
			 Broxbourne 1 2 1 — Greatest pressure 
			 Cambridge 3 1 1 — — 
			 Castle Point 2 2 3 — — 
			 Chelmsford 3 2 2 — — 
			 Colchester 2 3 3 — — 
			 Dacorum 4 1 2 — — 
			 East Cambridgeshire omitted 2 2 — — 
			 East Hertfordshire 3 1 2 — — 
			 Epping Forest 3 1 1 — — 
			 Fenland 3 4 4 — — 
			 Forest Heath 4 3 2 — — 
			 Great Yarmouth 3 4 4 — — 
			 Harlow 1 2 3 — — 
			 Hertsmere 3 1 1 — — 
			 Huntingdonshire 3 3 3 — — 
			 Ipswich 3 4 3 — — 
			 Kings Lynn and West Norfolk 4 4 3 — — 
			 Luton 3 3 4 — — 
			 Maldon 2 2 3 — — 
			 Mid Bedfordshire 3 2 3 — — 
			 Mid Suffolk 5 3 3 — — 
			 North Hertfordshire 3 2 3 — — 
			 North Norfolk 3 3 3 — — 
			 Norwich 2 3 3 — — 
			 Peterborough 3 4 4 — — 
			 Rochford 2 2 2 — — 
			 South Bedfordshire 2 2 3 — — 
			 South Cambridgeshire 2 1 1 — — 
			 South Norfolk 4 3 3 — — 
			 Southend-on-Sea 3 3 4 — — 
			 St Albans 2 1 1 — — 
			 St Edmunsbury 4 3 3 — — 
			 Stevenage 2 2 3 — — 
			 Suffolk Coastal 1 3 2 — — 
			 Tendring 1 3 4 — — 
			 Three Rivers 3 1 1 — — 
			 Thurrock 4 3 4 — — 
			 Uttlesford 3 1 1 — — 
			 Watford 1 1 2 Greatest pressure — 
			 Wavoney 4 4 4 — — 
			 Welwyn Hatfield 2 1 1 — — 
			 South West 
			 Bath and North East Somerset 3 2 2 — — 
			 Bournemouth 2 2 2 — — 
			 Bristol 3 3 3 — — 
			 Caradon 3 3 3 — — 
			 Carrick 5 2 2 — — 
			 Cheltenham 3 2 3 — — 
			 Christchurch 1 1 1 Greatest pressure Greatest pressure 
			 Cotswold 4 2 1 — — 
			 East Devon 3 2 2 — — 
			 East Dorset 2 1 1 — — 
			 Exeter 2 3 2 — — 
			 Forest of Dean 3 3 3 — — 
			 Gloucester 2 4 3 — — 
			 Isles of Scilly 2 2 1 — — 
			 Kennet 4 2 2 — — 
			 Kerrier 1 3 2 — — 
			 Mendip 1 3 2 — — 
			 Mid Devon 2 3 2 — — 
			 North Cornwall 4 3 2 — — 
			 North Devon 4 3 2 — — 
			 North Dorset 4 2 1 — — 
			 North Somerset 2 3 3 — — 
			 North Wiltshire 1 2 2 — — 
			 Ponwith 2 3 2 — — 
			 Plymouth 2 4 4 — — 
			 Poole 2 2 1 — — 
			 Purbeck 2 2 1 — — 
			 Restormel 2 3 3 — — 
			 Salisbury 2 2 1 — — 
			 Sedgemoor 4 3 4 — — 
			 South Gloucestershire 1 2 3 — — 
			 South Hams 3 2 2 — — 
			 South Somerset 2 3 3 — — 
			 Stroud 5 3 3 — — 
			 Swindon 2 3 3 — — 
			 Taunton Deane 2 2 2 — — 
			 Teignbridge 1 3 2 — — 
			 Tewkesbury 4 2 2 — — 
			 Torbay 1 3 3 — — 
			 Torridge 4 3 2 — — 
			 West Devon 3 3 2 — — 
			 West Dorset 3 2 2 — — 
			 West Somerset 3 3 2 — — 
			 West Wiltshire 2 3 3 — — 
			 Weymouth and Portland 2 3 3 — — 
			  
			 North East  
			 Alnwick 5 4 4 — — 
			 Berwick-upon-Tweed 5 5 4 — — 
			 Blyth Valley 5 5 5 — — 
			 Castle Morpeth 5 4 4 — — 
			 Chester-le-Street 5 5 5 — — 
			 Darlington 5 5 5 — — 
			 Dorwentside 5 5 5 — — 
			 Durham 4 5 5 — — 
			 Easington 4 5 5 — — 
			 Gateshead 5 5 5 — — 
			 Hartlepool 5 5 5 — — 
			 Middlesbrough 5 5 5 — — 
			 Newcastle upon Tyne 5 5 5 — — 
			 North Tyneside 5 5 5 — — 
			 Redcar and Cleveland 3 5 5 — — 
			 Sedgefield 4 5 5 — — 
			 South Tyneside 5 5 5 — — 
			 Stockton-on-Tees 5 5 5 — — 
			 Sunderland 3 5 5 — — 
			 Teesdale 5 5 4 — — 
			 Tynedale 2 4 4 — — 
			 Wansbeck 5 5 5 — — 
			 Wear Valley 4 5 5 — — 
			  
			 North West  
			 Allerdale omitted 5 5 — — 
			 Barrow-in-Furness 5 5 5 — — 
			 Blackburn with Darwen 4 5 5 — — 
			 Blackpool 4 5 5 — — 
			 Bolton 5 5 5 — — 
			 Burnley 2 5 5 — — 
			 Bury 5 5 5 — — 
			 Carlisle 5 5 5 — — 
			 Chester 4 3 4 — — 
			 Chorley 4 4 5 — — 
			 Congleton 5 4 4 — — 
			 Copeland 5 5 5 — — 
			 Crewe and Nantwich 5 4 5 — — 
			 Eden 3 4 3 — — 
			 Ellesmere Port and Neston 4 4 4 — — 
			 Fylde 1 4 4 — — 
			 Halton 5 5 5 — — 
			 Hyndburn 5 5 5 — — 
			 Knowsley 5 5 5 — — 
			 Lancaster 5 5 5 — — 
			 Liverpool 4 5 5 — — 
			 Macclesfield 4 3 3 — — 
			 Manchester 3 5 5 — — 
			 Oldham 5 5 5 — — 
			 Pendle 5 5 5 — — 
			 Preston 4 5 5 — — 
			 Ribble Valley 4 4 4 — — 
			 Rochdale 5 5 5 — — 
			 Rossendale 5 5 5 — — 
			 Salford 5 5 5 — — 
			 Sefton 5 4 4 — — 
			 South Lakeland 3 3 3 — — 
			 South Ribble 2 4 4 — — 
			 St Helens 4 5 5 — — 
			 Stockport 5 4 4 — — 
			 Tameside 4 5 5 — — 
			 Trafford 4 3 3 — — 
			 Vale Royal 4 4 4 — — 
			 Warrington 5 4 4 — — 
			 West Lancashire 5 4 4 — — 
			 Wigan 5 5 5 — — 
			 Wirral 5 5 5 — — 
			 Wyre 3 4 4 — — 
			 Yorkshire and the Humber 
			 Barnsley 5 5 5 — — 
			 Bradford 5 5 5 — — 
			 Calderdale 5 5 — — 
			 Craven 4 4 4 — — 
			 Doncaster 5 5 5 — — 
			 East Riding of Yorkshire 4 4 4 — — 
			 Hambleton omitted 3 2 — — 
			 Harrogate 2 3 3 — — 
			 Kingston upon Hull 5  6 — — 
			 Kirklees 4 5 5 — — 
			 Leeds 4 4 4 — — 
			 North East Lincolnshire 5 5 5 — — 
			 North Lincolnshire 5 5 5 — — 
			 Richmondshire 3 3 4 — — 
			 Rotherham 3 5 5 — — 
			 Ryedale omitted 3 2 — — 
			 Scarborough 4 4 4 — — 
			 Selby 4 4 4 — — 
			 Sheffield 4 5 5 — — 
			 Wakefield 5 5 5 — — 
			 York 2 3 3 — — 
			  
			 East Midlands 
			 Amber Valley 4 4 4 — — 
			 Ashfield 5 5 5 — — 
			 Bassetlaw 5 5 5 — — 
			 Blaby 5 3 3 — — 
			 Bolsover 4 5 5 — — 
			 Boston 3 4 4 — — 
			 Broxtowe 2 4 4 — — 
			 Charnwood 4 4 4 — — 
			 Chesterfield 4 5 5 — — 
			 Corby 4 5 5 — — 
			 Daventry 5 3 3 — — 
			 Derby 5 4 5 — — 
			 Derbyshire Dales 4 3 3 — — 
			 East Lindsey 3 4 4 — — 
			 East Northamptonshire 2 4 4 — — 
			 Erewash 3 4 4 — — 
			 Gedling 1 4 4 — — 
			 Harborough 3 2 3 — — 
			 High Peak 2 4 4 — — 
			 Hinckley and Bosworth 4 4 4 — — 
			 Kettering 4 4 4 — — 
			 Leicester 5 4 4 — — 
			 Lincoln 5 4 4 — — 
			 Mansfield 2 5 5 — — 
			 Melton 3 3 3 — — 
			 Newark and Sherwood 3 4 4 — — 
			 North East Derbyshire 5 5 4 — — 
			 North Kesteven 4 4 3 — — 
			 North West Leicestershire 4 4 4 — — 
			 Northampton 4 4 4 — — 
			 Nottingham City 5 5 5 — — 
			 Oadby and Wigston 4 4 4 — — 
			 Rushcliffe 2 2 3 — — 
			 Rutland 5 2 2 — — 
			 South Derbyshire 5 4 4 — — 
			 South Holland 3 4 4 — — 
			 South Kestoven 4 4 4 — — 
			 South Northamptonshire 3 2 2 — — 
			 Wellingborough 4 4 4 — — 
			 West Lindsey 1 5 5 — — 
			  
			 West Midlands 
			 Birmingham 5 4 4 — — 
			 Bridgnorth 3 2 3 — — 
			 Bromsgrove 2 2 3 — — 
			 Cannock Chase 4 4 4 — — 
			 Coventry 5 4 4 — — 
			 Dudley 4 4 4 — — 
			 East Staffordshire omitted 4 4 — — 
			 Herefordshire 2 3 3 — — 
			 Lichfield 4 3 3 — — 
			 Malvern Hills 4 2 2 — — 
			 Newcastle-under-Lyme 5 5 5 — — 
			 North Shropshire 2 4 4 — — 
			 North Warwickshire 5 4 4 — — 
			 Nuneaton and Bedworth 5 4 4 — — 
			 Oswestry 4 4 4 — — 
			 Redditch 5 4 3 — — 
			 Rugby 5 3 4 — — 
			 Sandwell 5 5 4 — — 
			 Shrewsbury and Alcham 2 3 3 — — 
			 Solihull 3 2 2 — — 
			 South Shropshire 3 3 1 — — 
			 South Staffordshire 4 3 3 — — 
			 Stafford 4 4 4 — — 
			 Staffordshire Moorlands 1 4 5 — — 
			 Stoke-on-Trent 5 5 5 — — 
			 Stratford-on-Avon 3 2 2 — — 
			 Tamworth 3 4 4 — — 
			 Telford & Wrekin omitted 4 4 — — 
			 Walsall 5 5 4 — — 
			 Warwick 4 2 2 — — 
			 Wolverhampton 4 5 5 — — 
			 Worcester 3 3 3 — — 
			 Wychavon 3 2 3 — — 
			 Wyre Forest 1 4 3 — — 
		
	
	Note:
	There were eight authorities which had no or a negligible number of social lettings.
	These authorities were omitted from the analysis as these data were considered to be unreliable.
	1 Greenwich was added to the list of areas under housing pressure at the request of the borough.
	2 East Hampshire was excluded from the original list because of a data problem. As it was a marginal case, it was not added at a later stage.
	3 Spelthorne and Christchurch were not included on the final list at the request of these districts.
	
		
			  Combined Indicators 
			  Original Using Income 
			 London No changes 
			 Barnet Greatest pressure Greatest pressure 
			 Bexley Greatest pressure Greatest pressure 
			 Brent Greatest pressure Greatest pressure 
			 Bromley Greatest pressure Greatest pressure 
			  
			 Camden Greatest pressure Greatest pressure 
			 City of London Greatest pressure Greatest pressure 
			  
			 Croydon Greatest pressure Greatest pressure 
			  
			 Ealing Greatest pressure Greatest pressure 
			  
			 Enfield Greatest pressure Greatest pressure 
			 Hackney Greatest pressure Greatest pressure 
			 Hammersmith and Fulham Greatest pressure Greatest pressure 
			  
			 Haringey Greatest pressure Greatest pressure 
			 Harrow Greatest pressure Greatest pressure 
			  
			 Hillingdon Greatest pressure Greatest pressure 
			  
			 Hounslow Greatest pressure Greatest pressure 
			  
			 Islington Greatest pressure Greatest pressure 
			  
			 Kensington and Chelsea Greatest pressure Greatest pressure 
			  
			 Kingston upon Thames Greatest pressure Greatest pressure 
			  
			 Lambeth Greatest pressure Greatest pressure 
			  
			 Lewisham Greatest pressure Greatest pressure 
			  
			 Merton Greatest pressure Greatest pressure 
			 Newham Greatest pressure Greatest pressure 
			 Redbridge Greatest pressure Greatest pressure 
			  
			 Richmond upon Thames Greatest pressure Greatest pressure 
			 Southwark Greatest pressure Greatest pressure 
			 Sutton Greatest pressure Greatest pressure 
			 Tower Hamlets Greatest pressure Greatest pressure 
			 Waltham Forest Greatest pressure Greatest pressure 
			 Wandsworth Greatest pressure Greatest pressure 
			  
			 Westminster Greatest pressure Greatest pressure 
			 South East 5 areas with changed status 
			 Chiltern Greatest pressure Greatest pressure 
			 Epsom and Ewell Greatest pressure Greatest pressure 
			 Hart Greatest pressure Greatest pressure 
			  
			 Oxford Greatest pressure Greatest pressure 
			 Reigate and Banstead Greatest pressure Greatest pressure 
			  
			 Tonbridge and Malling Greatest pressure Greatest pressure 
			 Vale of White Horse Greatest pressure Greatest pressure 
			 West Berkshire Greatest pressure Greatest pressure 
			  
			 Reading Greatest pressure — 
			 Spelthorne Greatest pressure — 
			  
			 Adur — Greatest pressure 
			 Brighton and Hove — Greatest pressure 
			 New Forest — Greatest pressure 
			 East of England 2 areas with changed status 
			 Watford Greatest pressure — 
			 Broxbourne — Greatest pressure 
			 South West No change 
			 Christchurch Greatest pressure Greatest pressure

Sexual Abuse of Minors: Standard of Proof

Baroness Thornton: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Following the judgment in Re H and others (Minors) (Sexual Abuse: Standard of Proof) (1995), whether setting a higher standard of evidence in such cases is in the best interests of children; and, if not, what measures they intend to take to deal with the current state of the law.

Lord Filkin: Although the judgment stated that a higher standard of evidence was required if allegations were serious, the civil standard of proof, based on the balance of probabilities, remains unaffected. This judgment was raised during the passage of the Adoption and Children Bill (Official Report, 15/7/02; col. CWH 332). My noble friend Lady Scotland of Asthal subsequently wrote to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, setting out the Government's position, which remains unchanged. A copy of the letter was placed in the House of Lords Library.

House of Lords: Communications Monitoring

Lord Laird: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they have a policy on the bugging of telephone calls and monitoring of other communications of Members of the House of Lords.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I refer the noble Lord to the answer in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister to my honourable friend the Member for Thurrock on 30 April 2000, (Official Report, Commons, col. 292).

Entitlement Cards: Stand Website Submissions

The Earl of Northesk: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How, in calculating the statistical response to the Home Office consultation on the proposal to introduce identity cards, they intend to treat the 5,029 submissions from the Stand website on the matter.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: 5,031 emails have been received via the Stand website in response to the Government's consultation exercise on entitlement cards. They will be counted in the same way as other inspired samples or surveys of opinion which by their nature cannot be representative of the population as a whole. Another example is the response to an ITV Teletext survey which showed 2:1 support for a card scheme.

Armed Forces: Campaign Medal for Service in Afghanistan

Lord Hardy of Wath: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether campaign medals have been issued to British service personnel who served in Afghanistan.

Lord Bach: The matter of a medal for campaign service in Afghanistan is under discussion, but at this stage it is too early to say what form a medal might take or when it would be instituted.

Defence Storage and Distribution Agency

Lord Burlison: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What key targets have been set for the chief executive of the Defence Storage and Distribution Agency for financial year 2003–04.

Lord Bach: The chief executive of the Defence Storage and Distribution Agency has been set the following key targets for 2003–04:
	Key Target 1: To meet the customer's requirements as negotiated and agreed in customer supplier agreements. (CSAs)
	Key Target 1a: For explosive materiel: to supply 95 per cent available maintained munitions within demand time-scales.
	Key Target 1b: 95 per cent of all issues of non-explosive materiel to consumers to meet that element of the supply chain pipeline time (SCPT) for which DSDA has a responsibility.
	Within the 95 per cent target, for non-explosive materiel, the following subsidiary targets have been set in CSAs:
	99 per cent of issues to meet specified SCPT at standard priority codes 01, 02 and 05
	98 per cent of issues to meet specified SCPT at standard priority code 06
	97 per cent of issues to meet specified SCPT at standard priority codes 03 and 07
	95 per cent of issues to meet specified SCPT at standard priority codes 04 and 08
	Key Target 1c: 98 per cent of all receipts that conform to the specifications laid down in the contract and/or material regulations to be processed within time limits agreed with each individual customer.
	Key Target 2: To achieve an average 5 per cent reduction in the unit cost of output.
	Key Target 3: The value of inventory written off as a result of DSDA's actions to be less than the levels agreed within each customer supplier agreement.
	Key Target 3a: The value of explosive materiel written off as a result of DSDA's action to be less than the value of materiel written off during financial year 2002–03.
	Key Target 3b: The value of non-explosive materiel written off as a result of DSDA's action to be less than levels agreed within each specific customer supplier agreement.

Pilot Training

Lord Hardy of Wath: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether consideration has been given to increasing pilot training in areas where the climate might allow training to be completed within a shorter time.

Lord Bach: The RAF has undertaken both basic flying training and on-going flying training overseas with varying results. The RAF's experience has been that initial training is not completed any more quickly than the equivalent training in the United Kingdom, partly because the lack of experience of flying in different weather conditions means that additional training is required when pilots return to the UK. Ongoing non-operational flying is regularly conducted overseas with more success, although additional time is taken travelling to and from the training location.

British Forces Post Office

Lord Burlison: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What key targets have been set for the chief executive of the British Forces Post Office for financial year 2003–04.

Lord Bach: The chief executive of the British Forces Post Office Agency has been set the following key targets for 2003–04:
	Key Target 1: To meet 95 per cent of the customers' requirements as negotiated and agreed in customer supplier agreements for the transit of defence postal service (DPS) traffic BFPO to the theatre of operations (TOO), front line commands (FLCs) or on board ship.
	Key Target 2: To meet 95 per cent of the customers' requirements as negotiated and agreed in customer supplier agreements for the transit of defence mail service traffic from BFPO to customers of defence mail centres.
	Key Target 3: To meet 97.5 per cent of the customers' requirements as negotiated and agreed in customer supplier agreements for the transit of defence courier service traffic from BFPO to the customers/TOO.
	Key Target 4: To achieve an overall 3 per cent increase in efficiency.
	Bill

Defence Transport and Movements Agency

Lord Burlison: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What key targets have been set for the chief executive of the Defence Transport and Movements Agency for financial year 2003–04.

Lord Bach: The chief executive of the Defence Transport and Movements Agency has been set the following key targets for 2003–04:
	Key Target 1: To meet the customers' requirements as negotiated and agreed in CSAs to deliver:
	a. 97 per cent or more of Agency transactions and services provided under call-off contracts to be within agreed time, quantity, quality and cost (TQQC) criteria.
	b. At least 92 per cent of transactions against each contract to be within agreed TQQC criteria.
	Key Target 2: To reduce the average unit cost of output by 2 per cent in real terms.
	y Target 3: To achieve at least a "satisfactory" rating in the provision of operational transport and movements support.

Free and Open Source Software Foundation in Africa

Lord Avebury: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will consider supporting the Free and Open Source Software Foundation for Africa, and whether they will draw this initiative to the attention of other member states of the European Union.

Baroness Amos: DfID works in consultation with the Free and Open Source Software Foundation in Africa (FOSSFA) through our partnership for IT in Education (Imfundo) and our Catalysing Access to Internet in Africa (CATIA) programmes. We are currently considering an action plan recently put forward by FOSSFA in the context of our wider involvement in information and communications in developing countries.
	We are in discussions with our European partners and others, through the e-envoy about open source development, particularly in the context of the preparations for the World Summit on the Information Society to be held in Geneva between 10 and 12 December 2003.

Middle East and North Africa: UK Contributions to EU Assistance Programmes

Lord Howell of Guildford: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will make a continuation of the United Kingdom contribution of 19 per cent of the European Union's assistance programmes for the Middle East and North Africa region conditional on reform and improvement of these programmes.

Baroness Amos: The UK's contribution to the EC budget is governed by treaty and determined by rules set out in the "Own Resources Decision". Such contributions are to the EC budget as a whole, and it is not possible to impose unilateral variations to individual community spending programmes.
	Improving the effectiveness of EC aid remains a key objective for DfID. In August 2001, we published a revised strategy for improving the poor performance of the EC's development programme, building on the Commission's own programme of reform launched in 2000. In May of this year, the UK Action Plan for the reform of EC external spending was presented to ECOFIN by the Chancellor. This suggests an acceleration of the reform process.
	We recently circulated our draft regional assistance plan for the Middle East and North Africa region for public consultation. This envisages DfID working much more closely with the EC than hitherto, with a view to helping the Commission improve the effectiveness of their development programmes in the region.

Housing Benefit Sanctions and Anti-social Behaviour

Earl Russell: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to paragraph 17 of the consultation paper Housing Benefit Sanctions and Anti-social Behaviour, what meaning they attach to the phrase "any sanction must take proper account of people's circumstances"; and whether they believe these words require them to discover what alternative source of legal income is open to those so sanctioned.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Any determination of anti-social behaviour, which could lead to a housing benefit sanction, would be based on the facts of the particular case and would include consideration of a family's circumstances for the purpose of deciding whether to apply a lower rate sanction on grounds of hardship.

Housing Benefit Sanctions and Anti-social Behaviour

Earl Russell: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to paragraph 17 of the consultation paper Housing Benefit Sanctions and Anti-social Behaviour, whether the phrase "behaviour that the claimant could reasonably have been expected to control" applies to the behaviour of tenants' children over the age of 18.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: We propose that a sanction might be applied to a tenant's housing benefit in response to anti-social behaviour by the tenant, by any member of their household, or visitor to their household, regardless of age.

Housing Benefit Sanctions and Anti-social Behaviour

Earl Russell: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether, before introducing housing benefit sanctions, they will consult the Children's Society about the possibility that parents may evict children whom they cannot control; and what would be the response to such evictions.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: We welcome the views of any organisation or individual on these proposals. We have sent a copy of the consultation paper to the Children's Society.
	If any children leave home in these circumstances, they will have access to the same help and support as any other children who are homeless.

Housing Benefit Sanctions and Anti-social Behaviour

Earl Russell: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to paragraph 17 of the consultation paper Housing Benefit Sanctions and Anti-social Behaviour, whether they will consult the Attorney-General about the developing interpretation of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights; and whether they will ask him to keep this under review.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: We take advice as necessary on matters relating to the European Convention on Human Rights, but it is not the practice of Her Majesty's Government to disclose the sources of their legal advice.

Housing Benefit Sanctions and Anti-social Behaviour

Earl Russell: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to paragraph 18 of the consultation paper Housing Benefit Sanctions and Anti-social Behaviour, whether their definition of hardship rests on any medical evidence.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: We will set out detailed proposals in the light of responses to the consultation. The exact test of hardship is yet to be decided. Criteria for applying a lower sanction in other benefits include, for example, the presence in the family of a person who is pregnant or seriously ill.

Housing Benefit Sanctions and Anti-social Behaviour

Earl Russell: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How they intend to ensure that the proposals in paragraphs 23 and 24 of the consultation paper Housing Benefit Sanctions and Anti-social Behaviour are compatible with Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: It would be the Government's intention to include such safeguards in any provision for sanctions to ensure their compatibility with Article 6. For example, a system to impose a sanction through an administrative process would therefore include the right of appeal to an independent and impartial tribunal established by law.

Housing Benefit Sanctions and Anti-social Behaviour

Earl Russell: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to their consultation paper Housing Benefit Sanctions and Anti-social Behaviour, what rate of reduction of housing benefit is contemplated; and on what evidence this rate has been chosen.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: As we are consulting on these measures, we will wait for responses before setting out our detailed proposals. Sanctions in the income-related benefits normally involve a reduction by an amount equal to 40 per cent of the personal allowance for a single person, or 20 per cent for prescribed groups.

Housing Benefit Sanctions and Anti-social Behaviour

Earl Russell: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What they estimate will be the reduction in housing benefit spending as a result of the sanctions set out in their consultation paper Housing Benefit Sanctions and Anti-social Behaviour; and
	What is the extent of losses they estimate will be suffered by landlords as a result of housing benefits sanctions set out in their consultation paper Housing Benefit Sanctions and Anti-social Behaviour; and whether landlords will receive any compensation for these losses; and
	What they estimate will be the effect of their proposals set out in their consultation paper Housing Benefit Sanctions and Anti-social Behaviour on the size of the pool of potential social landlords.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Our intention is that sanctions will work as a deterrent to anti-social behaviour. In that case, they will be imposed in relatively few cases and the impact on housing benefit spending would therefore be minimal.
	Our consultation includes representative groups of local government and housing associations, and individual local authorities and registered social landlords. We will consider the possible impact of the proposals in the light of responses to the consultation.
	The impact of any sanction that is imposed would be to reduce the money available to the tenant, but it would not remove his duty to pay the rent. Sanctions are a longstanding feature of the benefit system. It is not the practice to compensate third parties when a person does not meet his financial commitments to them because his income is reduced by a sanction.

Benefit Sanctions: Hospital Admissions and Imprisonment

Earl Russell: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether those subjected to previous benefit sanctions have a higher or lower rate of admission to hospital than other people on means-tested benefits; and
	Whether those subjected to previous benefit sanctions are more or less statistically likely to suffer imprisonment than other people on means-tested benefits.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The information is not available. Barrie

University Entrants: Socio-economic Classification

Earl Russell: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What percentage of university entrants were from social groups C2, D and E, (a) in 2002; (b) in 1992; (c) in 1982; and (d) in 1972.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: The available information on the social class of higher education students covers only those who apply to full-time and sandwich undergraduate courses via the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS) and its predecessor organisations, the Universities Central Council for Admissions (UCCA) and the Polytechnic and Colleges Admissions Service (PCAS). The proportions of accepted applicants who came from the skilled manual, semi-skilled and unskilled social classes were 26 per cent in 1992 and 28 per cent in 2001; comparable figures for earlier years are not held centrally. In 2002, following a major review of government social classifications commissioned by the Office for National Statistics (ONS), a new socio-economic classification was introduced, which is not directly comparable with the social class figures for previous years. The socio-economic classification is derived from the individual's occupation, employment status, and the size of the organisation in which they work, whereas social class was based on their occupation only; and it uses an updated list of occupations.
	However, figures are available for participation rates by social class back to the 1970s, and these are shown in the table below. Participation rates express the number of young people in higher education, as a proportion of the total number of young people in the general population.
	The Government are committed to raising the participation rates for people from less affluent backgrounds, and have introduced the Excellence Challenge, including the AimHigher campaign, which is targeted at raising attainment and aspirations among young people who traditionally would not consider going to university.
	
		Age Participation Rates(1) for social classes IIIm, IV, and V(2)
		
			 Year API 
			 1970 5% 
			 1980 7% 
			 1990 10% 
			 2000 18% 
		
	
	(1) The API is defined as the number of UK domiciled under 21 initial entrants to full-time and sandwich courses expressed as a proportion of the averaged 18–19 year old GB population.
	(2) Skilled Manual (IIIM), Semi-skilled (IV), and Unskilled (V).

EU Transport, Telecommunications and Energy Council, 5 and 6 June

Lord Clinton-Davis: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What the outcome was of the Transport, Telecommunications and Energy Council held on 5 and 6 June; and what their stance was on the issues discussed, including their voting record.

Lord Davies of Oldham: The transport segment of the Transport, Energy and Telecommunications Council was held in Luxembourg on 5 and 6 June. My right honourable friend, the then Minister of State for Transport (Mr Spellar) represented the United Kingdom.
	The Council agreed a three-part package on aviation external relations. This includes mandates for the Commission to negotiate an air service agreement with the US on behalf of the Community, and to negotiate on specific Community issues with other third countries, while allowing flexibility for member states to negotiate and implement air service agreements bilaterally. We welcome this package as a pragmatic and balanced response to the European Court of Justice rulings in the "open skies" cases, and my right honourable friend spoke in support of it.
	A general approach was reached on a regulation suspending the use-it-or-lose-it rule for airport slot allocation for the summer season 2003 for application in summer 2004, because of the exceptional circumstances—the Iraq conflict and SARS—that affected passenger demand.
	There were written reports to the Council on progress on two legislative proposals in aviation, the draft regulations on insurance requirements and protection against unfair pricing practices by third countries.
	There was a debate on a draft regulation on ship and port facility security. Further work will be done in COREPER with a view to agreement at the October Council. There was consensus that work should focus on implementing the IMO regime for international traffic and the possible extension to Class A passenger ships on domestic voyages (primarily those travelling more than 20 nautical miles from the coast). We support this regulation, which will ensure the consistent application of IMO requirements agreed last December. We expressed our concern at the automatic application to shorter domestic voyages at Council.
	Council Conclusions were agreed on improving the image of Community shipping and attracting young people to the seafaring profession. We welcome this initiative and my right honourable friend proposed that there should be a review of progress during the UK Presidency in 2005, following a Commission report. This was welcomed by the Commission and the Presidency.
	Written reports were submitted to the Council on designation of particularly sensitive sea areas and on the outcome of the IMO Diplomatic Conference of 12 to 16 May to adopt a Protocol to the International Convention on the Establishment of an International Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage, 1992.
	Council Conclusions were agreed supporting the integration of EGNOS (project for enhancement of the GPS system in Europe) and the Galileo satellite navigation project. We are in favour of the integration of EGNOS and Galileo.
	The Commission reported on progress of the High Level Group of Member States and acceding country representatives looking at future priorities for the transport Trans-European Network. The group's report will be submitted to the Commission, which will bring forward proposals.
	Council Conclusions were agreed on the Commission's road safety action plan, entitled, Halving the number of road accidents victims in the European Union by 2010: a shared responsibility. We welcomed the document and said that, where legislative measures are in prospect, they will have a much better chance of early acceptance by the Council if careful consideration of proportionality and subsidiarity issues is given beforehand. My right honourable friend referred to the UK's good record on road safety, which showed the value of our approach. The UK was one of the member states singled out by the Commission as models for best practice in reducing road accidents.
	There was a written report on progress on the draft directive on minimum safety requirements on tunnels in the trans-European road network. Several member states, including the UK, although supporting the general aim of improving safety, have had concerns about some of the detailed technical provisions in this directive. The Commission recognised that further technical work needs to be done and that there is a need for flexibility in application. The Council will aim to reach agreement on the directive later this year.
	The Commission reported on its plans for transport infrastructure charging. It plans to issue a proposal on a revised Eurovignette system for the charging of HGVs before the summer break. A number of member states called for rapid progress to be made on expected wider proposals for transport infrastructure charging. My right honourable friend called for proposals which will support the implementation of the UK's own lorry charging scheme.
	No formal votes were taken at this Council.

Equality and Diversity: Consultation Responses

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	To what extent have the submissions received on their draft equality regulations argued for (a) the use of primary rather than secondary legislation, or (b) a single Equality Act extending beyond the employment field.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: Of 620 responses to Equality and Diversity: The Way ahead (published in October 2002), 18 (3 per cent) said they would have preferred the Government to use primary legislation rather than secondary legislation as a way of implementing the Employment and Race Directive. 16 responses (3 per cent) suggested that new legislation on (sexual orientation, religion and age) should extend beyond the field of employment. In both cases, the responses came from unions, faith groups and other representative bodies.
	One hundred and six (39 per cent) respondents to the parallel consultation on the future of Great Britain's equality institutions, Equality and Diversity—Making it Happen, argued for measures o harmonise anti-discrimination legislation, in particular through a single Equality Act.

Accidental Injury Surveillance

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How, following the closure of the Home Accident Surveillance System, they plan to compile accidental injury data relating to consumer products; and what measures are in place to ensure a continuity of information relating to injuries involving consumer products.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: Even though no new data will now be collected for HASS, the Government recognise that the existing database will remain a valuable resource for many years which should continue to be freely available for users. They will, therefore, be looking for proposals from other organisations that would be interested in taking it over. The value of the database should be enhanced by the inclusion of the past three years data which has been delayed by IT problems. The Government hope to be able to publish this later this year.
	The report of the Accidental Injury Task Force identified a need to strengthen the surveillance of accidental injury at regional and local levels in the NHS. This will be the Government's first priority. However, it is too soon to say whether NHS surveillance will collect data on product involvement in accidental injuries in the sort of detail which HASS has provided. If detailed data is required on product safety issues, this can be collected through targeted surveys.

Accidental Injury Surveillance

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What estimates they have made of the cost of home and leisure accidents; and how these compare with the cost of running the Home Accident Surveillance System.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: The 1999 HASS report estimated the cost to society of UK home accidents to be in the order of £25 billion per annum. The Government are not aware of any equivalent estimate for leisure accidents. The annual cost of running HASS varied but was around £1.5 million.

Accidental Injury Surveillance

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How they intend the United Kingdom will contribute to the European Home and Leisure Accident Surveillance System following the closure of the Home Accident Surveillance System.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: The DTI expects to be able to publish HASS data collected during 2000, 2001 and 2002 in the second half of 2003, and to provide data for these years in the appropriate format to the European Home and Leisure Accident Surveillance System (EHLASS) on a similar timescale. EHLASS has now been replaced by the Injury Surveillance System (ISS) with the start of the EC's Public Health Programme 2003–08 (PHP) on 1 January 2003.
	The PHP embraces a number of health-related work areas, one of which is injury prevention. The scope of injury prevention within the PHP extends beyond accidental injury to incorporate injuries from violence and self-harm. The Government are considering how they might contribute to this in the future.

Accidental Injury Surveillance

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What effect the closure of the Home Accident Surveillance System will have on the ability to draft British Standards relating to consumer products.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: In the short term, as the existing data will still be available, there will probably be little impact on drafting standards relating to product safety. This will be further minimised by the inclusion of the past three years' data which has been delayed by IT problems. The Government hope to be able to publish this later this year.
	Regarding the future, my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Competition, Consumers, and Markets has written to the British Standards Institution inviting it to continue to feed its ideas on evidence-based policy making into the National Standardisation Strategic Framework.

Accidental Injury Surveillance

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What consultations were carried out with the major users of the Home Accident Surveillance System before it was decided to close it down.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: No formal consultation was carried out but the Government have been and continue to be in regular contact with the major users of HASS.

IT Disposal in Government Departments

Lord Avebury: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether, in order to comply with their obligations under the Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive, they will consider asking Computer Aid International to take all personal computers no longer required by government departments for re-use in developing countries.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: Government are undertaking a full consultation process and the views of the noble Lord will certainly be considered carefully.
	DTI IT equipment is disposed of by our supplier in accordance with its green disposal policy, which encourages both reuse where possible and recycling.

Export Controls

Lord Hylton: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	To which countries sales of digital computers, machine tools, microwave components and pre-cursor chemicals have been authorised in the past five years; and whether this included Syria and Iran.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: Where the goods are controlled for strategic reasons, details of all relevant export licences are published by destination in the Government's Annual Report on Strategic Export Controls. Copies of the 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001 annual reports are available from the Libraries of the House. The 2002 annual report will be published shortly.

Genetically Modified Crops

Lord Hylton: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is their response to:
	(a) the call by the British Medical Association in Scotland for trials of genetically modified crops to be stopped immediately to safeguard public health; and
	(b) the move by Devon and Lancashire County Councils and three other local authorities to restrict genetically modified foods and crops.

Lord Whitty: (a) Approval of genetically modified crop trials in Scotland is a matter for the Scottish Executive, subject to EU regulations.
	(b) Local authorities are entitled to make their own choices and to take their own decisions in relation to the use of genetically modified organisms on their own land or in goods supplied to them. However, relevant EU and UK legislation is based on the general presumption that authorized genetically modified food and crop products may be marketed without restriction throughout the Community, provided all appropriate measures have been taken to avoid adverse effects on human health and the environment.

Genetically Modified Crops

Lord Hylton: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they have studied the statement by the United States Government that genetically modified crops do not increase yields; and that by the directors of Oxfam, Christian Aid, Save the Children, Cafod and Action Aid on the relationship between genetically modified crops and poverty and malnutrition in the developing world; and, if so, what response they made.

Lord Whitty: These statements are being considered, alongside other evidence, by the Prime Minister's Strategy Unit as part of its study on the overall costs and benefits of GM crops. This study will contribute to the ongoing public dialogue on GM issues, and the Strategy Unit is expected to publish its final report in June 2003. More information can be found at www.strategy.gov.uk/2002/GM/summ.shtml

Technetium-99: Discharge into Irish Sea

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What directions they have given the Environment Agency regarding the discharge of technetium-99 into the Irish Sea from Sellafield.

Lord Whitty: In 1999, at the time that the discharge limit for technetium-99(Tc-99) was reduced from 200 TBq/year to 90 TBq/year, we asked the Environment Agency to carry out a review of Tc-99 discharges and report its findings in advance of those for the main review of all other radioactive discharges from the Sellafield site. Following public consultation on its proposals the agency published its proposed decision for Tc-99 in September 2001. In December of last year, we announced our agreement with the agency's proposals which, when implemented, would result in the Tc-99 discharge limit being reduced to 10 TBq/year in 2006.

Depleted Uranium

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How many sites are licensed to use depleted uranium in manufacturing of any kind; and what guidance is given on waste disposal of material emanating from those sites.

Lord Whitty: In England and Wales there are approximately 150 premises in the manufacturing sector that hold certificates of registration, under the Radioactive Substances Act 1993, from the Environment Agency in relation to the keeping and use of depleted uranium. The vast majority are simply users of articles manufactured from depleted uranium, eg industrial radiography source containers. The agency's central records list only five premises, other than sites licensed under the Nuclear Installations Act (Amended) 1965, that are engaged in manufacturing and are specifically authorised to dispose of depleted uranium wastes. In addition to the five sites referred to above, the agency is aware of manufacturing activities involving depleted uranium at licensed nuclear sites such as AWE Aldermaston. A number of nuclear sites (for example BNFL Springfields) and some Royal Ordnance sites (for example ROSM Featherstone and Cardiff) were previously engaged in the manufacture of depleted uranium components, but have now ceased manufacturing.
	In England and Wales the disposal of depleted uranium waste is controlled by means of certificates of authorisation issued by the agency under the Radioactive Substances Act 1993. Specific conditions and requirements relating to disposal are detailed in the certificate. During the regulatory process of applying for a certificate specific guidance is provided by the agency to each applicant.

Depleted Uranium

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	On how many sites where depleted uranium has been used there have been incidents that have been investigated by the Environment Agency.

Lord Whitty: During the past 10 years the Environment Agency (EA) has been involved in the investigation of only one incident at a site where depleted uranium has been used and this was for the purposes of producing munitions. One investigation has also been undertaken at another site, but this was where it had been illegally tipped.

NHS Staff: Flexible Retirement

Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How comprehensive are the provisions in place for National Health Service professionals to take flexible retirement; and how many have taken up this option.

Lord Warner: The Department of Health (England) is actively encouraging National Health Service professionals to consider flexible retirement options.
	The flexible retirement initiative was launched in July 2000 to ensure that the NHS makes the most of valuable experienced staff at the same time as enabling them to extend their earning lives. Flexible retirement has been included as evidence for organisations in the Improving Working Lives Standard, which all trusts should have achieved by April 2003. The Flexible Careers Schemes for general practitioners and hospital doctors can also be used to support individuals in taking flexible retirement.
	Two guidance booklets, in the series Working Lives Flexing Retirement, one for staff and one for managers are available on the Improving Working Lives website (www.doh.gov.uk/iwl). Two more in the series planned for GPs and hospital doctors are due to be published in June. There is also a Flexing Retirement Helpline (01253 774440) for all National Health Service staff who want to review their retirement options and how they will affect their pension.
	Data are not available on how many National Health Service professionals have taken up flexible retirement options.

Pro-life Groups: EU Monitoring

Lord Alton of Liverpool: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is the scope, budget and staffing of the unit set up by the European Union to monitor the activities of pro-life groups.

Lord Warner: The Government have no information about, or knowledge of, such a unit.

NHS National Programme for Information Technology

The Earl of Northesk: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is the budget for the National Health Service National Programme for Information Technology.

Lord Warner: Central funding for the National Programme for Information Technology in the National Health Service is to be made available as follows: £370 million in 2003–04, £730 million in 2004–05 and £1.2 billion in 2005–06. This funding will be supplemented by local investment, currently running at £850 million a year from baseline allocations.

NHS National Programme for Information Technology

Baroness Noakes: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether any information technology staff employed by the National Health Service will be transferred to private sector companies as a part of the national programme for information technology in the National Health Service; and, if so, in what circumstances this would arise.

Lord Warner: There are no plans to transfer National Health Service information technology staff to private sector companies as part of the national programme for IT in the NHS. There is no reference to transferring staff in the Official Journal of the European Community contract notice and it is not included in the procurement process.

NHS Electronic Patient Records

The Earl of Northesk: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How many local National Health Service electronic patient records contracts have been cancelled; and at what cost to the public purse.

Lord Warner: Information about local contracts let by National Health Service organisations for electronic patient record systems is not held centrally where there is no need for Departmental approval.
	No contracts that have been awarded have been cancelled.

NHS Electronic Patient Records

Baroness Noakes: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is the status of electronic patient records projects in the National Health Service.

Lord Warner: The delivery of electronic records is being taken forward as part of the Integrated Care Records Service (ICRS) which is core to the National Programme for Information Technology.
	An advertisement was issued on 31 January 2003 in the Official Journal of the European Community calling for expressions of interest from the private sector to supply professional IT applications and services to the National Health Service in England as a key element of the implementation process for ICRS. Longlisted suppliers are currently being invited to submit proposals for ICRS that will include access to records and the functionality needed to support clinical practice.

NHS Electronic Patient Records

Baroness Noakes: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How much has been spent on electronic patient records projects in each of the three years ended 2002–03 (a) from central funds and (b) from local National Health Service funds.

Lord Warner: Central funding for electronic patient records projects had been in the context of the Electronic Record Development and Implementation Programme (ERDIP) for the National Health Service in England.
	The ERDIP projects were funded to a total of £12.7 million for the three year period ended March 2003. The breakdown by year (£000) is:
	2000–01 £4,032
	2001–02 £4,863
	2002–03 £3,843 (this amount includes £2,635,000 from the National Programme for Health Records Infrastructure, Integrated Care Records Services and National Patients Record Analysis Service work).
	All of the ERDIP projects have now formally completed and the lessons learned have been fed into the National Programme for Information Technology in the NHS work.
	Investment by local NHS organisations on electronic patient records is not monitored centrally.

Neurology Registrars

Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What was the number of (a) funded and (b) non-funded specialist registrar posts in neurology in the National Health Service in England and Wales in 1996–97; and what plans there are for increases in each category.

Lord Warner: In 1996 and 1997, there were 163 staff and 159 staff respectively within the registrar group in neurology. The funding arrangements at that time required Postgraduate Deans to fund 50 per cent of the cost of a new specialist registrar (SpR) post and trusts would fund the remaining 50 per cent.
	SpR posts are now funded in two ways; either through central funding (100 per cent funding) or local funding, in which trusts either convert existing training posts or remap money into the training levy to pay for the post. This process of funding was established in 2001–02.
	In 2001–02, central funding was provided to support the implementation of five additional SpR posts in neurology and eight additional posts were funded locally.
	In 2002–03, central funding was provided to support the implementation of two additonal SpR posts in neurology and five additonal posts were funded locally.
	In 2003–04, central funding is being provided to support the implementation of 10 additonal SpR posts in neurology. Trusts will also have the opportunity to create up to 20 locally funded SpR training opportunities.
	The case for further neurology expansion will be reviewed in specialty review meetings this summer.
	Information relating to Wales is a matter for the Welsh Assembly.

Haemophiliac Patients: Access to Medical Records

Lord Clement-Jones: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What action they are taking to ensure that haemophiliac patients are given full and timely access to their medical records in order to enable them to take legal action against United States companies who have supplied plasma to the National Health Service.

Lord Warner: It is the responsibility of individual National Health Service organisations to ensure that they comply with legal requirements when dealing with requests for access to health records. The Data Protection Act 1998 provides individuals with a right of access to their health records. However there are certain circumstances in which the record holder may withhold information.
	Access may be denied, or limited, where the information might cause serious harm to the physical or mental health or condition of the patient, or any other person, or where giving access would disclose information relating to or provided by a third person who had not consented to the disclosure. The decision over whether to grant or withhold access must be made by individual record holders. However individuals do have recourse to the NHS complaints procedure if they feel that their application for access has not been dealt with appropriately.

Blood Products: Review

Lord Clement-Jones: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What review has been carried out of the circumstances in which files relating to liability for the supply of blood products, which were compiled while Lord Owen was Health Minister, went missing; and what has been the outcome.

Lord Warner: An informal review is being undertaken by the Department of Health to clarify the facts surrounding the drive for United Kingdom self-sufficiency in blood products in the 1970s and 1980s. The review is based on papers available from the time and is not addressing allegations that files from that period went missing.

Healthcare Regulation, Audit and Inspection

Lord Clement-Jones: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Which bodies are involved in healthcare regulation, audit and inspection in England; and how many employees they have.

Lord Warner: There are numerous organisations which regulate, audit and inspect differing aspects of the provision of hospital care at infrequent intervals. The majority of these organisations generally focus on one particular aspect of healthcare provision. Therefore, regulation, audit and inspection is only one area of their work. It is therefore not possible to distinguish whom, in any one organisation, is working on these areas of work.
	The only body which undertakes a full inspection of National Health Service hospitals is the Commission for Health Improvement (CHI) which undertakes a rolling programme of clinical governance reviews. On average each trust might be inspected once every four years. CHI currently employs 357 staff, 51 of which are engaged in inspection work. The National Care Standards Commission (NCSC) inspects private sector providers. The NCSC currently employs 2,285 staff, 53 of which are engaged in private and voluntary sector healthcare inspection work.

Postgraduate Medical Education

Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is being done to ensure Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland health departments and academic bodies are fully represented and involved in the changes to junior medical staff training posts as set out in Modernising Medical Careers.

Lord Warner: The provision of postgraduate medical education is a matter to be taken forward by the individual countries in the United Kingdom. However, it is clearly an area where the four United Kingdom governments and relevant professional and academic bodies need to work in close partnership. Our policy document Modernising Medical Careers was publicised jointly by the four UK health departments and we continue to liaise closely.

Food Safety Act 1990: Water Supply

Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by the Lord Hunt of Kings Health on 11 December 2002 (WA 45), in which section of the Food Safety Act 1990 the exemption in relation to the supply of water to any premises appears.

Lord Warner: Sections 55(1) and 56(1) of the Food Safety Act 1990 disapply the provisions in Part II of the Act and subordinate legislation made under it (such as the Food Labelling Regulations 1996) in relation to the supply of water to any premises.